The Cameron Hooker case illustrated that when it comes to expert testimony more than just the testimony itself that is important. The credibility of the expert witness and how they are perceived by the judge and jury is equally as important as the information they are sharing. In this particular case the prosecutor’s witness Dr. Hatcher was an expert in terrorism, brainwashing and coercion. When he testified he did not attempt to conform the case to the definition of brainwashing, as a matter of fact he stated that he did not believe that Stan had been a victim of brainwashing. Hatcher did however, feel that Stan had been a victim of coercion. Hatcher broke down the individual aspects of coercion and how they each individually affected
The court will likely hold that Andrew Keegan’s (“Mr. Keegan”) actions were a product of a law enforcement officer in influencing his conduct therefore establishing an entrapment defense.
In the Norfolk Four case, Ford began his interrogatories by a prior assumption that the four suspects were involved in the case. As Chapman (2013) noted, “ the interrogator will use whatever means necessary to elicit a confession, and not only will the suspect confess, but they will form false memories of the crimes they did not commit,” (p.162). Joseph Dick, one of the four suspects in the Norfolk Four case, claimed that due to the harsh interrogatories, he accepted the label put on him and began to believe that he committed the crime. Accordingly, Joseph Dick and the others began telling false narratives of the way they committed the crime. Even though, their narratives contradicted with evidence and facts of the actual murder, Ford proceeded to psychologically abuse the four suspects in order to hear what he wanted to hear.
During the novel, Chris states that a murder is commonly committed by a member of your own family. By stating facts and using statistics, the reader believes that it is possible Mr Shears committed the murder. “5. If it was c) I only knew one person who didn’t like Mrs Shears, and that was Mr Shears who knew Wellington very well indeed.” chapter sixty-seven, page fifty-four. In this quote, our protagonist explains to the reader why he believes Mr Shears may have murdered the dog, he does this by stating facts which forces the reader to believe Chris and consider Chris as a reliable source. During the novel the reader is not given any direct clues to any other suspects and follows along and agrees with Chris’ actions and beliefs. One way the author shows this is by making Chris keep investigating Mr Shears and trying to find evidence to prove him guilty. “This meant that Mr Shears was my Prime Suspect.” chapter sixty-seven, page fifty-four. This quote directly states who the suspect is and this short, direct sentence motivates the reader to agree and continue to believe everything the narrator states. With all things considered, Mr Shears did not commit the crime and his intention in the novel was to mislead the reader as well as the young
On September 24, 2016, “Charlotte Shooting; police release video and photo evidence,” an article developed by Nick Valencia, a writer for CNN, describes the events leading to the death of Keith Scott. According to the Charlotte Police department, officers were going to an apartment complex for an unrelated incident when officers notice Keith Scott in his car with a firearm visibly in his hand. Officers instructed Keith to drop the firearm. Instead of letting go of the firearm, Keith decided to exit the vehicle when he was told not to. This lead to officers firing upon 43 year old Keith Scott, as they felt he was a danger to everyone who was in the surrounding area.
More specifically, expert testimony is intended to assist jurors with their task of evaluating trial evidence by providing them with information that is not commonly known by laypeople but is relevant for making the decision confronting the jury (Neal and Kovera). Sometimes they may offer an opinion about a crucial issue in the case based on their specialized knowledge or skills. When testifying about their area of expertise or about the opinion that they have formed after reviewing case facts, “experts are essentially communicating information to the jury with the intent of influencing their decision in a case” (Neal and Kovera). Thus, in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, flawed expert testimony (fire investigator Vasquez and Fogg) could be easily construed as a persuasive message delivered to the jury. Sometimes the expert testimony may be flawed. Why? They misinterpreted and misunderstood the evidence. Generally, misinterpretation is a way causing wrongful conviction through the misuse of evidence. Misinterpretation of evidence refers to a failure to analyze or interpret evidence correctly, and thus, it may be misused (Ramsey). Correct analyzing and understanding of evidence needs expertise and skills. The misinterpretation could be unintentional or intentional (Ramsey). When misinterpretation happens, the
The conditions of an interrogation room, small and dark, make it easy for the interrogators to get in one’s head. The hostile conditions create a divide and discomfort between the suspect and the interrogator, already losing trust on both parties. “He eventually confessed, but investigators had to ‘spoonfeed’ him the details”(Patrick). The suspects feel uncomfortable and scared of the interrogators therefore, they feel the need to please the police, even if the idea did not come from them. In this case, the suspect Michael Crowe was under an immense amount of trauma, getting rushed in a cop car from the crime scene straight to the police station. After being interrogated for three and a half hours he was taken to a different location to get interviewed, “he was emotionally drained and so tired he could barely walk”(Warden 13). In the second interview one interrogator asked Crowe to write a letter to his dead sister he was accused of killing, “it is almost like I am being convinced of this[more] than really knowing it...I pray to God that you forgive me for what they say I did”(Warden 13). Crowe uses the phrase “what they say I did” proving that the confession was not his idea, but the police’s instead. He was innocent and the police forced him to make up a story and confess to a crime he did not commit, utilizing the mental strain of interrogation against
A leading researcher, Elizabeth Loftus reported that members of the jury tend to trust or rely heavily on eyewitness reports especially when the victim has witnessed the crime with their own eyes. However, research has shown that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable and statistics indicate that there are many wrongful convictions every year as a result of unreliable eyewitness testimony (Loftus, 1986; Wade, Green & Nash, 2010). There are a number of different reasons for why false identification can occur during a criminal case, many of which came into play during the Ronald Cotton case. For example, in some cases perception of what occurred is often impaired and the witness’s memory of the event is sometimes faulty. Other common causes of eyewitness error are often due to external factors such as the procedures that police use to obtain the identification of the perpetrator. These factors include suggestive questioning and line-up biases, which have been known to affect the confidence of one’s decision, and in turn, affect the accuracy of the identification process (Wells & Olson,
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
The use of an expert witness can be traced back to the 18 century where a professional was first called by an attorney to testify to the court and give their opinion on legal matters. Due to the experts testimony in the case the judge felt confident in choosing what the outcome should be in the case. Since then expert witnesses have assisted in numerous court cases. The practice of expert witnessing has been steadily increasing because of the extensive growth and knowledge in scientific fields and technology, thus the need for experts to resolve legal disputes where lay people would have little or no knowledge (Berger). Today “Expert witnesses are used in a wide range of litigation and their opinions are often viewed as critical—frequently they can make or break a case. As a result, many trials have turned into a battle of the experts. Yet despite their importance, few attorneys take the time to utilize the proper resources to find the right experts, evaluate their credentials, and/or assess the admissibility of their testimony” (Brennan, Dilenschneider, Levin & Robinson, 2009 pg. 4). This essay will overview the role of an expert witness, how to determine credibility of an expert, their effect the court system, and steps that can be taken to ensure quality and honestly in expert testimony
In the case of the Trent and Joe, the interim social worker, responded properly and utilized the four phases of the problem-solving process which includes, the engagement phase, assessment phase, intervention phase, and evaluation phase. As a new interim social worker Joe is trying to acquaint herself with the teachers and learning the children’s name in the school. He was a little bit shocked when she saw how the teacher’s aide yelled at a little boy that was begging for his mother to come to his rescue. She did awesome job by properly engaging Trent. Joe makes good contact by meeting the client where he was and established rapport by briefly speaking and calming him down. But, relapsed when she said “By the time I count to five, you should
“Modern life had become too complex for ordinary householders to get along with the help of experts.” During the trial, Clarence Darrow saw his defense as a “vehicle for affecting the public,” one that which had little opportunity of winning, but in due course tooks it’s affect among those who heard his argument. Mr. Darrow, in a risky move, brought in outside experts to testify which, “was not only an affront to local pride but a relatively risky new procedure in law.” The times changing, with technology and scientology among other things, saw the need for the everyday person to have his/her life explained to them by an expert. The case changed a lot of the purpose of a normal person being able to consider complex thoughts and discriminate logical possibilities without a broken down explanation.
Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(1), 97-146. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.pioproxy.carrollu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222004&db=aph&AN=74017401&site=ehost-live&scope=site
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
In the case of eyewitness testimony, this may lead to wrongful convictions. The history of the United States justice system, like those of other countries is littered with wro... ... middle of paper ... ... ccuracy may be considered more important in eyewitness testimony than in any other memory use on the basis that the consequences of eyewitness accounts can be severe, and is not to be taken light-heartedly.
...ings as therapist and forensic expert. This is due to the premise that assuming the roles of both a therapist and a forensic expert may lead to the possibility that the expert is more concerned about the conclusion of the case than the integrity and accuracy of his testimony. Furthermore, there are many differences between the roles of the therapist and the expert. Some of these differences include attitudes of each expert, goals, and roles of therapist-patient and forensic-expert-patient relationships. These differences lead to the incompatibility of dual roles.